E-mail to Annette King

steveoh · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:38 am

Just sent this to Annette:

Minister
Could you please supply me with whatever structures, that have been put in place, that takes in to consideration the fact that, with in hours of using cannabis the active ingredient, (Delta-9-THC) has been in fact changed.

As you would probably know, the part of marijuana that gets you high is Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly called THC. And that is changed by the body into more inert molecules known as "metabolites', 11-hydroxy-tetrahydrocannabinol, and 11-nor-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Which do not get you "high". There is almost no Delta-9-THC left over, a few hours after smoking. This is proven.

Has anyone involved with the drafting of The Land Transport Bill (No#4), looked at the studies of; United States Department of Transportation's "Marijuana and actual driving performance" (1993), the University of Adelaide's study (1998), and the Institute for Road Safety Research of the Netherlands (2004). If you are ignoring these findings, then you must ignore all findings.

Cannabis has been used in New Zealand's society for decades. On its "own" cannabis has never been a problem on our roads. But mixed with alcohol; it seems to slow down the driver's already impaired reaction times.

The real issue here, which this bill seems to be avoiding, is the issue of separating young drivers from alcohol.

I am not condoning driving while impaired, my issue is the defining of impairment, It is unfair that someone can be charge with driving under the influence, when in reality, it has been hours, if not days since they had use cannabis.

If it was written into The Land Transport Bill (No#4), that a drug testing, CAN NOT be applied, except if the officer observes the driver; irregularly accelerating (slowing down/speeding up), and/or weaving across the lanes. I would find this acceptable.
It would be draconian to allow the police to use this bill as another tool for the Misuse of Drugs act. It also would be morally wrong for the police to use this tool at random roadside breathalyser stops.

I personally will refuse, and fight in a court of Law (jury trial), if I am ever stopped and asked to perform a impairment test at a random roadside breath test.

I will appreciate an expedite reply

Sincerely yours

Steven Wilkinson

Plus I was just asked to speak tomorrow on a community radio station (Fresh FM) about drug driving.
_________________
Regulation will set cannabis free

Freedom's just a TICK away - VOTE Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 2008 then everyone's a winner
Contact me: steven@alcp.org.nz Party website http://www.alcp.org.nz

Thread_Killer · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:59 am

All the best for the interview.. give them a good show..

However I thought Annie "get your gun" King said they weren't going to test for metabolites, only THC levels in whole blood (if its serum then the THC level should be doubled). Even US Norml concede that there is such a thing as cannabis impairment which can be related to high THC levels, as the more current reseacrh alludes to. I think the evidence is still sparse therefore a large window for error should be added to a limit, but with arguments such as NZ Norml's claim that cannabis use will show up 3 mths later in the proposed tests, I worry that inaccurate or "denial" arguments will undermine any valid ones.

We can concede combined alc/thc is an issue, so I think we should concentrate on seperating it from sole use. I will be writing to her (I dont write many public LTE's but I do write privately to politico's now and again) suggesting to ONLY test AFTER a postive alcohol result, to eliminate sole cannabis users where the risk IS still vague, and make road side testing far more efficient and effective.

But yeah as a sole user if caught, I will fight a conviction tooth and nail as well.
_________________
IF 25 YEARS OF SMOKING DOPE HAS ADDLED MY BRAIN, I MUST HAVE BEEN AN INTELLECTUAL GIANT IN MY YOUTH ~Tim Shadbolt

Thread_Killer · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:49 pm

Right-O, now to get Annette's staffer to earn that salary and send me a standardised reply...

Dear Ms King

I am a responsible person who "unofficially" users marijuana for medical reasons and I am also a safe road user. Therefore I must express my extreme concern with aspects of the proposed drugged driving legislation that attempts to define and include marijuana impairment. The research behind the proposal is limited and vague with results at best, varying and at worst, contradictory.

For instance, while I support Professor Fergusson's call for marijuana decriminalisation, I question the veracity of his isolated survey regarding the proportion of alcohol to marijuana road users that not only counters overseas surveys but also common sense.

I dont deny that cannabis in combination with alcohol further increases drunk driving risk, and that poly-drug use is also a potential problem, but feel that it is these two groups that should be targeted, and not sole marijuana users who to date, have not been shown to be a medium to high risk. To include the sole user group will only weaken and undermine road safety initiatives. I dont expect you to take much notice of a "potentailly biased non-authority" and so I urge you to consider the findings of the following research review.

*posted below*

snip
The latter methodological requirement would need the introduction of a system of mandatory roadside drug testing.
snip

I wouldn't have a problem with road-side testing if it was for research purposes only, but until a more longitudinal study can eliminate confounding factors and conclusively show a level at which marijuana impairment might be placed, I should inform you that because I drive unimpaired, I will contest any charge of driving under the influence of marijuana.

Yours Sincerely
Mark *

*
_________________
IF 25 YEARS OF SMOKING DOPE HAS ADDLED MY BRAIN, I MUST HAVE BEEN AN INTELLECTUAL GIANT IN MY YOUTH ~Tim Shadbolt

steveoh · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:30 pm

Mark *

* You rock

_________________
Regulation will set cannabis free

Freedom's just a TICK away - VOTE Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 2008 then everyone's a winner
Contact me: steven@alcp.org.nz Party website http://www.alcp.org.nz

zinger · Heavy User Joined: Jul 11, 2006 Posts: 202 Location: nz

More info you may or may not like...

Dr Fergussons findings are in fitting with recent international research, but I see his literature review included a lot of old 1990s studies and missed some important recent ones, hence his "surprise".

Strathclyde study (Scotland) found of drivers pulled over suspected of drug impaired 69% had taken more than one drugs - half the time it is NOT alcohol, but of import the commonest drug so the best one to discourage f you want to reduce polydrugging risk is... thc.

EACD was advised the Australasian college of Policing says P causes risk taking by pursuit subjects. Most studies find P used with cannabis makes drivers that might have been OK (just on stimulants) into basket cases.

Surveys consistently find young males often drive within 2 hours of thc and are at high risk accordingly ie die eg Canadian Addicton survey 2004 of 4000 people was but one to find it's common for young males not to wait the recommended 2 hours.

Ph survey NSW found 11% of 18-29 year olds had driven within an hour of thc use, among recent users that rose to 43% - theprevalence of DUIC was only high among regular users - NSW Bureau of Crime Stats and Research.

Sugrue, et al - Trauma in SW Sydney study found high thc levels in 17 of 164 accident survivors. A further 10 had low levels.

Concentration of drugs in blood of suspected impaired drivers (Augsburger et al) - Cannabis found in 59% of drivers (THCCOOH) and delta 9 was also found in them al )median 3ng, range 1-35ng).

Alfred Hospital study of 436 injured drivers in Victoria found 132 had illicit psychoactives - when THCCOOH was also included this rose to 241.
8% had recently used and were impaired shown by delta 9, 46% had THCCOOH.

Philip Swann 4 year study found impairment mainly only with recent use.
Any alcohol - even a drop (which limits can't address except zero) super powered already raised risk.

Papafotiau et al (Swinbourne Uni) found sole consumption significantly increased weaving from 3 ng up in fitting with a body of recent work. This also found that adding alcohol will increase the blood concentration of thc.
- THC alcohol monograph - Nat drug lawenforcement research fund 2006

The risk of being found at fault UI cannabis has been shown in a few studies to be more increased than with P!

See Laumon et al "cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France" 2005 to see a good responsibility study of 9000 showing raised risk with delta 9 over 1ng. This study also found greater odds of dying when not at fault for users probably due to poor reactions when confronted with idiot drivers.

DUI drugs in Ireland - Nationwide survey 2001, found "the typical profile of the apprehended and tested DUI drugs driver is young, male, urban and with the presence of cannabinoids".

2004 cannabis and driving in Spain study found 10% of 2500 people self reported driving undr influence of thc the last year.

US study "the impact of cannabis on driving" 2003 published in Canadian Journal of Public Health vol 98 no1 2007) found presence of thc in drivers without alcohol significantly raised risk of unsafe driving actions such as speeding.

Michael Elliot et al "Gender differences among young drivers in the association between high risk driving and substance use" Journal of studies in alcohol 2006 found cannabis use is a strong predictor of a crash in males early driving career whereas alcohol binging is the predictor for females.

Hassan, Christopherson et al conducted study for Norwegian Institute of Public Health (not published in English I believe) but in "Tiddsskr Nor Laegeforen" that found the known increased risk for responsibility in injurious crashes with even low thc blood levels may persist even after thereis any measurab;le concentration in blood (due to fat storage).

Candors recent survey did not find many sole users so it is not able to draw any statistically sound conclusions about them I'm afraid.

But Candor data just gathered suggests it would be a big mistake to assume it is only the combining with alcohol that is a problem in NZ. Mixing with "harder drugs" to drivers peril seems pretty common too.

Heavy cannabis use was the main theme among crashers and offenders with the dodgy drivers preferring oil. Risky use (driving soon after) was pretty exclusively a young male behaviour. Most users over 35 made an effort not to drive impaired.

As with alcohol, it appears to be the irresponsible actions of a few messing things up for the rest.

zinger · Heavy User Joined: Jul 11, 2006 Posts: 202 Location: nz

Threadkiller, the legislation does not target sole thc use. It targets impairment as it is proposed.

Recent sole use is well accepted as impairing and no serious scientist could doubt it nowadays. Sure not highly impairing but enough that if every driver smoked it would hugely increase the crash rate. And too many do.

Being accident free is proof of nothing at all - most drink drivers who die were too. Policy is made to hedge against what are rare or only occasional events inevitably in the realm of DUI crashes.

The research also shows variable effects on people of sole use, and so the legislation is not targeting use as you say but rather seeks to identify impairments typical to the suspected drug before any biological fluid tests can even be ordered.

If you were to encounter a cop who thought you were impaired after standardised procedure shown effective to determine THC impairment (field test) and then you so happened to test positive for impairing metabolites, I'd say your best defence if you were on some long odds off chance unimpaired is a video of the field test.

Legislation just like this in the UK in 2004 reduced Durham county crash deaths by reducing what had been 50% thc rate in males to zero dead males with thc in blood within 2 years! That did take random field test checkpoints though which isn't on offer here.

The big bone of contention for me if I was in your shoes would be that I think the ability to charge people at even 1ng of delta 9 is too extreme a stance. Yes the science says you are impaired at that level, and it says that is shown in riskier driving behaviour... but I'm not sure it says that translates into significantly raised crash risk enough to warrant criminal charges. Just my opinion, but on the evidence of where crash risk gets raised I'd be seeking higher limit - for sole users.

Because lawyers will certainly strive to defend anyone below 3-5 ng thc and on the evidence they'd have a good show too.

Tony · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:58 am

ZINGER,

By all accounts , with the proposed criteria along the lines you suggest , the only ones to smile will be the lawyers.

To suggest a 1 ng limit and 3 ng should be contested will only open the whole cannabis and driving to become a farce .

There is more than enough substantiative evidence to suggest for most users 7 to 10 ng is only equivalant to .05 in alcohol .
Lets face it for every expert report suggesting lower levels , there are just as many in agreement .The way I see it , those who support the higher levels for the most part are independant organisations with a focus on research.. those who argue lesser values are for the most part associated with studies that have been more subjective .

The only way to avoid a fiasco is to construct such draconian legislation that completely disregards civil rights and sets mandatory limits without any reference to impairment . They will have to structure it in such a way as to ensure no room is left challenge on grounds of not being impaired.. They have already twigged to this..
It is one of the complications for many of the current DUI legislations drafters internationally.

Our legislators are currently considering new DUI laws based on flawed and or inaccurate data , more often than not driven by scare tactic , over the top misinformation generated by special interest groups..

Fortunately a resurgence in cannabis research over the last few years , driven by the medical potentials is also establishing far more accurate data.Most of this data is just starting to be reported and will offer up much more substantive evidence.

In New Zealand alone there are at least 27 cutting edge cannabis research projects , some very relevant to the DUI issue .
I would not be surprised if at least two of the outcomes of some of this research have not been put before the minister dept for his consideration before he gets carried away..

CANDOR might like to do an OI request .
In fact a request to obtain any reports or such like submitted by experts to the politicians regards cannabis matters . If they could be encouraged to share some of these , it would explain why they are waffling .

If any credence is given to the hodge podge of data currently being peddled and we get knee jerk legislation some people are going to have credibility issues .. but in the mean time the lawyers get richer, and innocent cannabis users end up victims.
I would like to think one of the reasons very few politicians are making a noise about the most recent cannabis scare material is they are more than aware of the truth . unable to speak out in what may be seen to be in defence of cannabis they remain silent.

It will be most interesting to observe just who speaks out firmly anti cannabis and calls for draconian DUIC legislation.. and we will see soon i expect..

They might be rather lonely . we shall see.

tony

Thread_Killer · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:08 am

Cheers steveoh, I'm not entirely happy with the letter (it's still morphing), but as potshots might say if he was here, it doesn't need to be a booker prize winner, as long as we send "a letter" voicing our opinion as voters, tax payers, and concerned citizens.

zinger · Heavy User Joined: Jul 11, 2006 Posts: 202 Location: nz

I'm not being circular at all - just pointing out that the legislation is not about one particular drug or targeting users of one particular drug thereof, as seems to be the perception round here.

If so charges under the mda would be possible. If so there would be no impairment test required BEFORE any body fluid test.

If so the law would not be inclusive of all drugs under the sun - illicit or prescribed. I think we will find that most people who're found impaired enough to be prosecuted will be polydruggers ie thc plus alcohol or fairly often just other drugs.

If so this may make a statement for international observers about the wisdom (or not) of just targeting illicits or of just going by limits on set drugs. I think we're taking a first step toward a sensible approach here, thanks to a fair bit of backroom arguing thusfar.

In many ways the legislation is sound. Somethiong has to be done, P is a real blight on the road in a way it never was before. And the tightening u on alcohol has pushed youingies to just get smashed on cannabis instead before being the designated driver.

The drive completely clean and sobre message has not been used by groups like SADD, ALAC etc and that is criminally negligent,and I assure you it has caused deaths - many. Humans are busy, they don't always "think" about risk and thats why public education campaigns or enforcement is needed for many things.

But Tony IMO it is draconian to have no thc limit, rather than draconian to have one which can be strongly correlated to impairment. I was interested that the people we surveyed lately were mostly in support of a limit as they wanted some certainty, just as you can roughly know how much liquor is legal. This was not a specific question but came out in the "have you any comments" wrap up at the end of the survey.

The above cited article is out of date eg incorrectly states cannabis is rarer in acciodents than alcohol - I have stats for about 4 Oz states showing otherwise. And it is again not well informed, due to having failed to note some very salient points from recent studies. The knowledge has moved forward and is still moving forward fast on this issue.

And the old "alcohol is a bigger problem" diversion is quite irrelevant. Because that issue is well addressed. The statistics say there is now more potential for improving crash stats by addressing the completely neglecte drug issue now.

Drink driving action, is at near saturation point although we could do with more rural checkpoints could do with more.

Unlikely to happen though, as the fines are more likely to get paid by city dwellers ambushed as they drive home on empty low speed streets at 4am with a very low chance of causing any major injury.

Only under 5% of alcohol related (not necessarily caused) crashes occur at levels below the present limit in NZ, so there is little to be gained from a change there either - other than enriching treasuries coffers.

The biggest impairment issues now with a hope of much improvement are fatigue and drugs. OK I feel like a stuck record now....

Also your letter says that cannabis increases alcohol impairment, showing a little bias there imo just by the wording.

The truth is that it goes both ways. Alcohol increases cannabis impairment more than vice versa because blood levels of cannabis raise with alcohol use, but I don't think that its been shown that alcohol levels in blood are increased by thc use at all.

To be accused of breaking Potshots is a bit heavy. I've not made him put 100% into this debate - thats his choice. And I appreciate his efforts to put forward his view and what the significant issues are from a thc user perspective.

I'm not surprised he's tired, its not an easy subject and there is a bunch of research to grapple with. And then the personal insights he has had (some of which I value and are glad to have heard) as well, he has expended time and energy thinking on will have taken some effort to communicate no doubt.

Re CLR I think the main barrier is who profits from it. Legalisation would reduce the high return on investment guaranteed by prohibition to the lawyers and Judges who invest in the product. IMO that would be the main barrier to relegislation - plain old fashioned greed. If it was legalised there would be littler option but for the lawyers and Judges to then invest in hard drugs instead too which wouldn't be good for anyone. Just a thought.

Thread_Killer · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:10 pm

Tony · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:39 pm

ZINGER,
I am not against measuring for THC
I said.
There is more than enough substantiative evidence to suggest for most users 7 to 10 ng is only equivalant to .05 in alcohol .

end quote.

My concerns is the proposed thresholds.I really consider anything less than 7 ng draconian and not based on sound evidence.
I have no objections in principal to road site impairment testing for any drugs , if medication scripted and legal pose a problem then they too should be included ..
I even go as far as supporting nil THC or less than 1 ng if combined with alcohol of over .03 .
And maybe zero for under 18 drivers ..

That is THC not the metabolites , zero for u18.

I can even see merit in random testing under certain circumstances..

I also frankly don;t care if the law was able to use evidence of P to bring further charges under the MDA .

I consider cannabis to be substantially different to the likes or Alcohol and P , and guess we should start considering some of the others as well , both old and new...
Until this substantial difference is acknowledge we will not get good law.

Mind you I am starting to think its may be all a bit academical for a number of reasons .
While the focus has been on vilifying cannabis ,P has gained such a foothold any DUIC issues will pale into insignificance .

Secondly, most of the yet to be released information and data arriving on the desk of the Expert Committee on Drugs and the MOH / Minister Office , from both local and international experts has got them worried..
Also the suggestion a devise shined in the eye that can read not only the full spectrum of drugs but give very accurate levels.. And can even calculate out impairment for poly drug combinations .. may be close to being available...I gather some very bright Kiwis exist in the pharmacology and technical fields...

tony

Thread_Killer · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:25 pm

Tony - you seem to have your ear close to the ground on a few things.

Do you have any idea what the power brokers are suggesting the THC cutoff level should be? I'd read German IACM research gave a window of 7-10 ng/ml plasma. Given the large amount of conjecture surrounding this issue it would be prudent to "err on the side of caution" and choose the higher end of the scale. I would be even happier if a margin for error was added. And I agree that it should drop when combined with other substances, and associated with certain risk groups.

I get a bit worked up and need to let off steam in my posts, although there's always some hot air in the mix. I need to be realistic, and assuming this legislation will go ahead in some form, a cautious sole THC level might be a better aim. I think I'll redraft my letter....again. This is why I dont write very many..!!

I read about one eye testing device on the site that shall not be named..

http://www.candor.org.nz/chapter_3.htm#eyes'
It has been around for a decade in the US. Perhaps it doesn't fit NZ's 3rd world cost/benefit model. I dont know whether the sensitvity or specificty is that good..!?
_________________
IF 25 YEARS OF SMOKING DOPE HAS ADDLED MY BRAIN, I MUST HAVE BEEN AN INTELLECTUAL GIANT IN MY YOUTH ~Tim Shadbolt

zinger · Heavy User Joined: Jul 11, 2006 Posts: 202 Location: nz

Cool Threadkiller, I too am just over it, its done to death now. But just so all interested parties know - I followed up on the Press article after I got all excited, as it had said scientists were testing saliva tests. Thought this was odd as its not the proposed method.

Anyway I chased it up and turns out they were not exactly testing the saliva tests, but they were just using them to assist with some other research. That was to see if eating marijuana cookies would result in thc levels being lower and more sustained than by smoking it.

Odd thing to be researching but apparently the results will be delivered to the sponsor of the study (ACC) in about 3 months or so. What's that about - have people had cooking injuries "CUIC" or something?

Further to this, research has been commissioned to test drugs confiscated by Auckland Police to see if they are stronger than at the last study a few years back. This is because of concern that hydroponics has altered stuff.

Thread_Killer · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:51 pm

^ In my previous post I had trouble linking to your website, is it possessed or something.

MrNiceGuyNZ · Forum Moderator Joined: Sep 18, 2005 Posts: 2906

For all the research and debate that we put in here, it means next to nothing in real time. 20 odd years of NORML in NZ and to date all the laws and regulations have been against us.
The political system will only accept biased information to support their claims.
The zingers of this country get listened to, the rest of us are but shit on the bottom of their shoes.

WE have the support of the majority of the public, a large proportion of the medical field and a minority of politicians, yet cannabis remains illegal.

The only conceivable way of getting this to work for us is from a political solution. Fight politics with politics. It is thanks to MMP that we have a situation that is only getting worse where we have minority parties controlling the majority of the population, so the only way to fight them is to use MMP against them.

There are NORML participants out there that refuse to have anything to do with the ALCP and would rather do their bit their way, but unless we all unite behind a political solution, the govt. has already won.

Without a political party in govt, there will never be changes to laws and regulations that we get stuck with because as has been shown currently and in the past, politicians have to tow party lines, without a coalition agreement in favour of cannabis expect laws to get far worse than they currently are.

I used to vote Labour, but they are happy to overtax single people so they can get stuffed.
I am a public servant so there is no way I will vote National, I like my job so they can get stuffed.
I voted Greens last election re the cannabis vote, well they shafted us so they can get stuffed.
NZ1 and Progressives - It's only the hidden backhanders that helps keep them getting in, they are crafty, manipulative and have radical veiws so they can get stuffed.

The only party worth getting my vote this coming election is the ALCP and I hope this is the case with many.

Unless we unite under the banner of the ALCP, expect no change to status quo.
_________________
A pain free day the marijuana way.

Vote for change, Vote ALCP


Home :: About NORML :: About Marijuana :: Hemp :: Medical Marijuana :: Your Rights :: Laws :: Get Active :: Politics

National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, New Zealand Inc (NORML NZ) PO Box 3307, Auckland, New Zealand (c) 1998-2007 All rights reserved by NORML New Zealand Inc. except all comments and forum posts which are property of their authors. Powered by PHP-Nuke